I second Andrew's recommendation. One can quibble with the technologies chosen, the capacity, cost, and readiness estimates (and the UK-centric focus). For example the capacity of carbonate and silicate weathering would appear to have been drastically underestimated considering that, baring some other human intervention, nearly all excess CO2 will eventually be consumed by this process (for $0). Nevertheless, the report provides a good framework for further analysis, refinement, and perhaps decision making. Figure 3 again begs the question: why would anyone be interested in DAC as a first step in air capture if cheaper and less leak prone high capacity methods are available? -Greg ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrew Lockley [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 5:22 AM To: geoengineering Subject: [geo] Comprehensive assessment of CDR - Friends of the Earth negatonnes report
This open access PDF file is a comprehensive treatment of a range of CDR technologies http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/negatonnes.pdf The meat is about p30, where a simple graphic visually presents cost, readiness and capacity data. This is similar to the Royal Society report style of presentation. I'd strongly encourage people to at least look at this graphic A -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
